Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
79 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,243 Year: 4,355/6,534 Month: 569/900 Week: 93/182 Day: 27/38 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


(1)
Message 231 of 342 (785242)
05-31-2016 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
05-31-2016 1:50 PM


ICANT writes:

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense

You are incorrect. For purposes of simplicity I stated in my OP that for my purposes "universe = multiverse", indicating anything that ever existed. I go on to state in the OP that God could be the first thing.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2016 1:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2016 12:03 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 237 of 342 (785257)
06-01-2016 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ICANT
06-01-2016 12:03 AM


ICANT writes:

So where am I incorrect when I say?...


I could have been more clear in my OP but as I have stated I was trying to keep it simple. If you had participated in the earlier discussion of this thread I'm sure it would be clear to you. Plus, the logic only works when applied to all of existence. Nevertheless, I have edited the OP from "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2016 12:03 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2016 4:52 AM nano has replied
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 4:27 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 239 of 342 (785312)
06-02-2016 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by bluegenes
06-02-2016 4:52 AM


I don't need to do that since there are only two possibilities with the first thing. It either created itself from nothing or was always there. Neither state can be explained.

And logically there can certainly be nothing. Witness the null set.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2016 4:52 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2016 2:27 PM nano has taken no action

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 243 of 342 (785596)
06-07-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
06-03-2016 4:27 AM


I don’t know if you don’t get my proof, or your just being argumentative. At the very least you have not read the conversation posted in this thread before you joined it. If you had made a sincere attempt to do so the answers would be clear to you.

Nevertheless:

The empty universe = the null set

There is nothing there, as in nothing exists. Literally, nothing.

I should think you would like my proof. With correct understanding it demonstrates your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 4:27 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2016 5:26 PM nano has taken no action
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 06-07-2016 11:52 PM nano has taken no action

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 261 of 342 (785704)
06-09-2016 8:25 AM


The OP is a thought experiment and a proof. Many of you are too distracted by the empty universe. The empty universe is not integral to the proof.

It’s very simple: Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist. It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain, or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain.

Also, anyone who says “We don’t know what we don’t know” is arguing from ignorance and takes the weakest of all possible positions. I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.


Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2016 9:02 AM nano has taken no action
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 06-09-2016 9:45 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 274 of 342 (785761)
06-10-2016 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
06-09-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Greatest proof of all time!
Stile writes:

How do you differentiate between something that is "impossible to explain" temporarily right now with the information we have currently available to us... versus something that is "impossible to explain" for all time, regardless of what information may come to us in the future?

Without being able to read the future, or know about information we don't have right now... I don't see how you're able to do such a thing.

If you add "...from what we've able to gather right now." To the end of your proof then it makes more logical sense.
Without that, the answer is "well, we might learn something new tomorrow, so your proof is useless for the future."

For 2nd things and beyond I would agree with you, but by its very nature the 1st thing has only two possible origin states and both are unexplainable. The logic dictates it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 06-09-2016 9:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 06-10-2016 12:07 PM nano has replied
 Message 284 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 9:39 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 276 of 342 (785783)
06-10-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ringo
06-10-2016 12:07 PM


Not really. If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist, then normal 1st thing rules would apply and you could logically ask "Where did it come from?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 06-10-2016 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 06-11-2016 11:41 AM nano has replied
 Message 278 by Diomedes, posted 06-11-2016 12:10 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 280 of 342 (785845)
06-12-2016 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by ringo
06-11-2016 11:41 AM


ringo writes:

At some "point" (which is not a place) all logic goes offline; the screen goes blank

I agree with you. There is a very real information wall at the beginning of all existence. All available information is contained in the 1st thing. It doesn't matter what it is. There can be no more discovery. This is why I say the 1st thing cannot be explained.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 06-11-2016 11:41 AM ringo has seen this message

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 281 of 342 (785846)
06-12-2016 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Diomedes
06-11-2016 12:10 PM


Diomedes writes:

Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.

I understand and agree. As a 1st thing, the singularity fits perfectly into one of the two origin states I have discussed. It has essentially "always been there", uncaused and uncreated. It has no beginning and thus cannot be explained. The time element, and causal relationships are not important in this origin state.

Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.

And they cannot be answered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Diomedes, posted 06-11-2016 12:10 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 1:32 PM nano has replied
 Message 285 by Diomedes, posted 06-13-2016 3:55 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 283 of 342 (785888)
06-13-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 1:32 PM


I'm not saying anything new. The two 1st thing origin states are clearly stated in the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 1:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2016 12:11 AM nano has taken no action

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 287 of 342 (786000)
06-14-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Diomedes
06-13-2016 3:55 PM


You make good points. I would admit to a flair for the dramatic in my writing, but this forum might not be the best place for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Diomedes, posted 06-13-2016 3:55 PM Diomedes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 06-14-2016 1:15 PM nano has taken no action

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 289 of 342 (786002)
06-14-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Stile
06-13-2016 9:39 AM


Stile writes:

If order for the logic to "dictate it" you have to actually prove that any and all alternatives are impossible.

I’ve presented my best reasoned arguments. Let the reader give credence where he may.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 9:39 AM Stile has seen this message

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 290 of 342 (793175)
10-23-2016 6:20 AM


I wanted to thank everyone for their participation in this thread. Your comments and insights are valuable, appreciated and affect my thinking on this subject. It's why I come here.

As a final consolidation of my position, I have revised my proof statement a bit and when I present this argument in the future I'll be stating it in this way:

************************************************

Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist:

- It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain

- Or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain

- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

************************************************

I have also updated the OP.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 10-23-2016 9:19 AM nano has taken no action
 Message 292 by Stile, posted 10-23-2016 10:38 AM nano has taken no action
 Message 293 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2016 8:42 AM nano has taken no action

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 295 of 342 (793367)
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


Even though my proof statement has been criticized as "obvious" in this very thread, I will attempt to explain.

The First Thing is the first thing to ever exist. At the point of its existence there is nothing else in the universe. Therefore there is no mechanism available to explain it and pointing to the first thing as the cause of its own existence is a logical fallacy (Circular Reasoning). Hence I can logically say the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

There are only two origin states for the same reasons as stated above. One can only point to the First Thing or...nothing.

Saying "We don't know what we don't know" is an Argument from Ignorance and is a logical fallacy.


Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2016 5:04 PM nano has replied
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 5:54 PM nano has replied
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 10-27-2016 7:29 AM nano has replied
 Message 299 by vimesey, posted 10-27-2016 9:14 AM nano has replied
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2016 9:57 AM nano has replied
 Message 301 by 1.61803, posted 10-27-2016 10:47 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 304 of 342 (793417)
10-28-2016 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by RAZD
10-26-2016 5:04 PM


RAZD writes:

But the "First Thing" is not the universe, it is in the universe.

This has been dealt with previously. It doesn't matter what the first thing is, it is the first thing to ever exist anywhere. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2016 5:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2016 4:16 PM nano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022